Order Requiring Remedial Action Plan
Summary
AI-generated summaryThe court found that the New Mexico Public Education Department and the State were not complying with earlier court orders and continued to violate at-risk students’ constitutional education rights. It concluded that a comprehensive remedial action plan was necessary.
Page 2 · source excerpt
On the basis of this evidence, this Court finds that Defendants NMPED and the State of New Mexico are not in compliance with this Court’s Decision and Order, issued July 20, 2018, and Final Judgment and Order, issued on February 14, 2019, and that Defendants continue to violate at-risk students’ right to a uniform and sufficient education mandated by the New Mexico Constitution.Open page 2
Page 2 · source excerpt
Consequently, the Court has determined that the development of a comprehensive remedial action plan is necessary for Defendants to achieve compliance with this Court’s orders and the New Mexico Constitution.Open page 2
The order directs NMPED to develop a plan with stakeholder and plaintiff participation, file progress reports, and submit a final plan for the court’s review. It sets deadlines from July through November 2025 and allows plaintiffs to object to the final plan in December.
Page 3 · source excerpt
By November 3, 2025, the NMPED shall develop a final comprehensive remedial plan for the Court’s review and consideration and shall file a status report with the Court.Open page 3
Page 3 · source excerpt
By December 1, 2025, Plaintiffs may file objections to the final plan.Open page 3
Page 3 · source excerpt
The NMPED shall develop this draft comprehensive plan with the participation of the stakeholders and the Plaintiffs, taking into consideration the components and elements raised in their briefing.Open page 3
Key points
The court found that the defendants had not implemented reforms that met the requirements of its prior orders and the state constitution.
Page 2 · source excerpt
On the basis of the evidence presented by the parties, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to implement reforms that satisfy these requirements.
Open page 2The court denied the plaintiffs’ proposal for LESC staff to lead and implement the plan process, explaining that it lacked authority to direct that staff. The order names NMPED as the body to lead plan development.
Page 2 · source excerpt
Because the LESC staff is not a party to this case and this Court does not have the authority to direct the LESC staff to create the comprehensive remedial plan, this request is denied. NMPED is the appropriate body to lead the development of a comprehensive plan.
Open page 2The order calls for an outside expert consultant to be identified by July 1, 2025, and for a draft plan by October 1, 2025, with LESC staff assistance contingent on that staff agreeing to assist.
Page 3 · source excerpt
By July 1, 2025, NMPED, with the LESC staff’s assistance, shall identify an outside expert consultant to assist with the development of the comprehensive remedial plan and file a status report with the Court.
Open page 3Page 3 · source excerpt
By October 1, 2025, the NMPED, with the assistance of the LESC staff, if that staff agrees to do so and as an expert consultant shall have developed a draft comprehensive remedial action plan, identifying all the components and elements necessary for a constitutionally sufficient and uniform education for at-risk students.
Open page 3The court states that failure to comply with the injunction may lead to sanctions; the order does not say that sanctions have been imposed.
Page 3 · source excerpt
The NMPED’s and the State’s failure to comply with this injunction may result in appropriate sanctions from the Court.
Open page 3
Questions to follow
- What components and elements will the parties and stakeholders propose for the comprehensive remedial plan?
- Will the plaintiffs file objections to the final plan, and will a party request a hearing?
Generated Oct 21, 2026 · Citations refer to the saved original · Text extracted with OCR.
Original source: Court of New Mexico (original hosted by NMCLP)
Help keep this archive accurate
Found an error or missing context? Send a private report to the review inbox. Reports do not automatically change or remove public content.
Commentary
AI-generated analysisThe assignment of plan leadership to NMPED could make the department’s coordination of the drafting process especially consequential, while the order also calls for participation by stakeholders and plaintiffs and assistance from an outside expert.
Page 2 · source excerpt
Open page 2Page 3 · source excerpt
Open page 3The objection and possible hearing steps mean the plan is subject to further review under the order; the document does not establish what the court will ultimately approve or whether the stated deadlines will be met.
Page 3 · source excerpt
Open page 3